1979 (7) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 28(1)(c) of the old Act corresponding to section 271(1)(c) of the new Act.
2. Imposition of penalty despite filing a revised return.
3. Restriction of penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be avoided.

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 28(1)(c) / Section 271(1)(c)
The court examined whether the provisions of section 28(1)(c) of the old Act, corresponding to section 271(1)(c) of the new Act, were attracted. The assessee had initially filed a return showing an income of Rs. 23,947, which was later found to be manipulated. The ITO discovered serious irregularities and manipulations in the accounts, leading to the conclusion that the assessee had concealed income. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty imposed by the IAC, noting that the assessee had not disclosed correct particulars of income in the original return. The court upheld this finding, stating that the concealment met the requirements of section 271(1)(c).

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty Despite Filing a Revised Return
The court addressed whether the penalty was justified even though the assessee filed a revised return before the assessment was completed. The assessee argued that the revised return should be considered under section 139(5) of the I.T. Act. However, the court noted that the revised return was filed under pressure and not voluntarily. The Tribunal ruled that the revised return did not expiate the initial concealment. The court agreed, citing precedents that a revised return does not negate the liability for penalty if the original return was deliberately inaccurate.

Issue 3: Restriction of Penalty to 100% of the Tax Sought to be Avoided
The court examined whether the Tribunal was correct in restricting the penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be avoided. The Tribunal had reduced the penalty from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 13,000, amounting to 100% of the tax sought to be avoided. The court held that the quantum of penalty is within the discretion of the Tribunal and upheld the decision, stating that it was in favor of the revenue and against the assessee.

Conclusion:
The court answered all three questions in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. The judgment emphasized that the concealment of income was deliberate and that the revised return did not mitigate the initial act of concealment. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate and within the Tribunal's discretion. There was no order as to costs.